t a 5-4 political -- seem

seemingly political vote. not everybody would grow with that. thchief justice agreed with the conservate argument on he ul jfydcse ane medicaid expansion was unconstitutional. i've got a couple of examples that -- i was on the radio a month ago and i said that i rpevybbyknckwasgoo do e mandate. my daughter asked me about it and said if congress passed a law that said families are required to have children or pay a tax penay. you'd say wait, the ovement ilt quireythae ou said, don't have children you're going pay higher taxes, pay a tax penalty, that's sort the way the law works right now. strerc n, that'shere chi

yantyou impose a tax penalty. on the medicaid, i thought that somebody said earlier, richard perhaps said, i thought this was a loser for the challengers because i thoughit a minute, the governments paying r th w ocomplain about that? the then i realized the challeng had a good arguement, which was being forced to do this. if we don't go along with the expansio we could los all o ou edicmy. byhoma example, it d't rise to the level of hypothetical. how about we go out to dinr tonight. ll pay all the cost. she aid no thank you. he sa text dyowo ifotoo to dinner within i'll pay it all. she said no. another day he says, i'd like

you to go out to dinner with me toght and i'll pay the full cost be you awer, i want you to know if odowatodoi yogh nt to think twice about coming to work tomorrow. if she brings a harassment claim to say i was ing may the whole cost. ve tnjcey knows that coerce. e medicaid provision is cohearsive. then he game up with a middle ground position to say the states can opt out. that justice agreed that the state opt out. one of theirete sneered at that and said we're not going go along with it. in other words, the roberts slowings remedied the problem the states were not copelled. but hesaidthpblbt

oe id t law has to go including this provision. and i think some of the -- the four on the right made explnged he chief justi mod. sobteshe. tho [applause] >> now we have a three minute thto .al round. ud] >> okay. yield to my long-winded question then. >> hord? >> i would like to touch briefly on the issue of the report. i think there's been focus on two different types of links. onbeinpossibl leaks befor e e ertsaft desion was released describes what was going on behind the scenes. i don't let -- the deliberation

revealed while there were underway. i think it was entirely st vsanjce hehi key eswd en play in the case. someone had cme out and strongly predicted that clarence thomas was going vote to uphold thman date and in fact he didn vote to uphold the megaledd thitldc suset the chief justice vote was in play. in terms of the post decision leaks which have come through in january crawford and cbs news who aselile sourcewit thrtscted. ink leaks in the end reflect poorly on the people on behalf seem to have been knead. when you're on a court like this, the justice haveto make desions. whether they like eac otr or e knows about what it's

like for judges not to -- southern colleagues having tried tried to --so naudle] log h other. and yet the court would come out with the decisions and this court will don't issue decisions the future as well. in terms of the trying to buy credibility for theue,th th hee i why chief justice roberts would rule this way now to immunize himself fromcriticism in the future. i don't find that to be credible at all. in terms of justice speaking to aellamote wasactll thasrm involving former justice john paul stevens on january 19, 2012 appeared on the colbert report. anybody has not seen that,

it's incrediblerrmance that owsjusice ha awer e u soue lesson is once you're a former jussist at least you can show off your wit publicly fortx. d e y rebuttal. i had a lotof time, i was impressed by the decision in the last week i the term. bedidn't get a chance to discuss much as we wanted to ie rns poto favor of all first amendment decisions. i didn't know that first amendment included a right to tell lies and whoppers in public because i had -- if i had a l of time here iwasgoigtel yoaboumycaeer yfo ha lot of good magic johnson stories.

it is truly a free speech. so anyway, i thought that was another surprise, you can make the argument that i have a first amenent ght lbt soinatno fw dpdai won the med doll of honor. he said a -- public hearing and he ended up winning in the supreme court. it surprises me. >> thank you all. rsawmaha-diti t l te the ask the first question to the audience. the moderator go first. i was taken by something that david that you wrote i'm going post you and your fellow panel is andthis u tnhe 30efthj crford revolutions that chief switched his vote, and in that piece that you wrote, you saidhat he saved satesn

urretinnh t but some who believe -- and we don't dpsh there's a lot of evidence in the opinion itself if you farce it he may have switched the vote. we don't know that. wetainly dn't kowe he sinncby lib rap onslaught. ly refer to the comment of the previous panel unfortuna is a raises a clout over the adnisttion wn th oh revelation you wrote that his admiration of chief justice hughes might have rededuct -- prdicted state easen li. wh t ue edootion showdown, he persuaded one waiverring justice to switch sites and vote to uphold the

minimum wage law and the collective bangerring issue. it defused f's plan uhold sue t lopth sue twhadti jue ace pointed by him. it died in the senate. that death leadship by hughes reserved the court as independent constitution. my own view is did the opposite. ynithwao suhisg god and bad judicial activism and really bad. and the really bad kind comes in big cases thatget the most attention and that wat sagritoerter rid a certain extent. i think maybe the justice shouldn't talk. it's your job when they do. how ar we to -- in the bewacasai thatchief justice

political manner, how does that weigh the balance between whether enhances the court's institution or undermines them? >> let try, we n't now wh fueiha h dd. mpio is that he had said, and long before this, that he believed it was the court's duty to uphold and active promise. uphold a law when was there as constitutional bis f ding so. ouiswhhdi th case. that is, that he agreed with the challengers that the commerce clause went too far. man dating a purche was something that hsn't ben dne anco'tuieun thmm ce. i disagreed he agreed with the challenges on medicaid expansion. but i think john roberts thought

that the power did create a eis that he thought it was the court's duty to try to uphold the law if it were -- if there was a conitutional basis for doing it. we don't know what happened at that conferenc i was srt uesaheor lyesrvjumeoth tax power issue. didn't get a lot of attention at the oral argument, but i thought that the government's brief made a reasonly -- good agumt in scone t here's a lot ybiaicub knows about the mandate. this is not a true mandate. you don't get prosecuted if you don't have health insurance. you don't get hauled off to jail. in practical operation, the telttyynt sai this is imply

the irs it was debated in congress, that way. everybody knew that is how it had been mandated the provision actually worked. you paid a tax penalty i don't know john robtings deep thought on this. i do thi he coresoy bee t plausible basis upholding this law on the tax power and that's what he ended up doing. i just want to say a cople of things about the sort of chart judialactisav cioeag. i was put forward by the dissent. and this term in the last three weeks, we had a case wre justice kennedy where the court decided nothing and the fcc fox case abuth leon er ic ni we don't have any reason to decide a nstitutional question in the case and didn't. on the very same day, justice briar accused conservative

majority of reaching a constu in e ce hehs are made and they're made not only by one side. but the only common ground. they're made by the losing side. and s -- watocoe. onn o in ey helpful. raised by justice to keep other justices in check. >> howard? >> i'm sorry. yesterday late in the day, i received an e-mailhat said the la- ko ut vis half dozen to dozen times between when the u.s. supreme court agreed to hear the case and harvard law professor appeared in public in the classroom by saying th way of the indationwod h wobeth wee fel rn has on msnbc

and other networks. he said it again and again and again. and of course, he is teacher that both thechief justice and president obama had when they re students law students at had. stn'c that the basis of the decision is entirely on prince. it is based n what the tngs said. i can realize people can disagree with it. and evidencely so. i think at i the ay se w may have happened leading up to the decision. i. >> just to correct the record. i certainl agree with chief justice roberts whenever he came to the conclusion genuinely believed, i findhitax nvng eriv he came to it as a matter of law, it isunfortunate that -- the question i was raisingis i

he d co rve cos o the groundty, if they were the case, and there is at least some leaks that might be the case, is that an admirable move? u t neocens e ca. ane ot ifce to. >> i think that certainly the chief justice needs to be concerned about the perception of the the court and the degree to which he allows thatto uenchi iseg inwwtk qte some time. but i think that all of the justices are certainly have a stake in the court's institutional position, and i ve ltrts,t they cognize tey anouw,as surprised at decision did come out 5-4 as

opposed to 6-3 but the thoughts that somehow justice kennedy who sant euptes, regarly with the chief justice that maybe that'll have some consequences in the future. >> davd? >> i don't have anything further to say on that. a situion ereweedion't recall d thtm justice kennedy was steamed up. he called it vast, you additional, overreaching, to uphold the substitute was vast, judici, and overreaching. hesouedcolagueylike stqly e e of tr justice sco lea is angry about somhing and lets you know. usually added justice kennedy. is time was justice kennedy oasredone on ir.

the first panel want to ask a question? richard? >> the combination of question and observation. to put it in a question form, do we think the stakes in terms of amican cnstitionise ass the current dispute as it was in 19. the answer is the it's not close. 1937 was a massive shift in order to preserve judicial integrity whatyou ae fat ra bureaucracy. expanded scope of the federal government and ever commerce clause by -- it's hard to measure what had ad been previously cotelyranorm the laonsh oer aglt,n, and employee relationships. and what's going on there, i can't conceive how any -- if you

think the decision is wrong, remember, they rued other way twyears before. detpoicoviin isto my mind catastrophic. there's nothing whatsoever about -- about t current dispute by the time you're done, the best way to think about it the commerce clause suff ws owayndha stwabrad end. few got rid both of the decisions you are about where you were beore. the change in the federal government is after the case relatively increment belie l a with the 1937 transformation. my question is do you agree with that assessment? >> i wou just say that the -- it's the atmospheric that re so different in -- northeast not ju the eavihe

imacn being pommeled by, you know, 24/7 communications. it's the partisan nature of the divide. nojust in th other two urerouw,haeven e sre cusitonreth ideology and the party sort of line up in the way. >> the 19. --1937 the social legislation in my ew von the ability revenue act, the tariff, the act all republicans conventions. progress republicans. and today that line is completely o the conservative democrats r3co progressive republicans. that as i think explains part of the difference. in terms of the size of the stake. i don't think it's possible to argue th anything happened

today is remotely as large as anytng that happened then. >> as an n 'soi having general fuel this country is matters of commercial and commercial olicy will be decided by congress. and president and the political ara. not by the supreme court ting ig manufacturing and manufacturing are those interstate commerce or is in instate commerce which is what they said. it seems to me, if this decision mp treblpition h is very clear in saying elect our candidate and we'll move to repeal the affordable care act. obama's position is ele s ad ea nforce.s

ey made it public and the people who get to decide how far do w want the federal government to regulate economic and commercial matters in couny. for the supreme court to say, we're going alo these sitoadyh pocaresstesme ast tugt was a conservative principle. a modest welfare for the the court allow that thelassically political decisions to be made by the political branch of the gornme. n ke okay. hi, heritage foundation. two questions, first, it steams thnuber of meare deonerly jones, williams and -- [inaudible] sherman savage, how do you apoach writing about and explaining a public decision whether there is a enormous and

le nta. meiertseems about everybody was supreme court -- [inaudible] many of them rose to the task admiral and some less so. any interesting dotes temporary an u.te >> well, they -- the ractured rung, i mean, there waat the ca.ct and that, of course, is what everyone cared about and cared about getting right first. , i mean, i think that's the day we're on th reporting became a little more kindf, youkno eke tes ofth thwe st breyer and with the chief justice on the

medicaid question. there was that aspect too. fortunately, with the case where y yo ims e setselfwas really thas rd o say anything meaningful about that case. so as far as antidotes go, you know, there were a lot ofor opteo, aom lage ng spokennen. animating conversation french and japanese on some of the decision base. but, you know, some of the commentary, this isotor ogerlg thth l u t put a lot of weight into the separate water. that struck me as at the time, kind of silly and while useful maybe in explaining one thing as int tlly mde

. >> here's what i've been doing. when you sat down with the supreme court decision, answer the three questions. what did the courtdecide. what was the egal buy sis for it and what does it ma myeore ineed d ieore average. when i started with the 25 years i've donethis, i could listen to the justices deliver an opinion, i could read it, i could read the decent and get ba to the offir an to reou ten asd figure out what did they decide in the case let alone whose what does it mean? it's a fun challenge to do it in ten or fifteen minutes. you get the opinion andbecause of the websites we have te qkl rmre ftgwere i ewhi want to do is count up t five votes. we knew in the health care case

quickly what the outcome was. there are quite a few, for ys heeraabhw's dgnd jones case and the gps. two different opinions, two different rationals they didn't exactly say they needed a search warrant. it's unclear, i take the fbi has a fe v au i h e ntyemedoy soma a fun part of the job of trying to quickly write something that says what they decided and what does it mean. and it, you know, there's never a day i think th isn le. >>th way, for the record you seem to think there was a liberal reult since oral advocate admitted it here tinge foundation has prepared he er-th position is

right position. >> i do think it was one of th interesting opinions of the term that justice is one of these, you know, usually considered a conservative but has sor of dhferaedwrte ei, wihm. i think down the road, that would be a opinion would be play out some way because the gornment doesn't need to attach a dwieps. eye actquio hrou heel diegrntck everywhere you go or do they need a search warrant in some particular reason to track you and the opinion will be what lor court judges will look to. r fussookgshi in the oral argument. howard, you wanted to comment? >> i think if the supreme court

had been able to get the health care opinion on the website assessable to the public 0: 07. wdart have reports on cnn n and fox news channel that incorrectly character highed what the holders were. people in the main officeread thedecision the same ay th oplen theprs fferw reg sonk that it's always nice when news organization want to cover the cour and i always preciate whenlocal news organizations go down to washington cover big cases from, you know, out in the sticks. erthe casris fom timetmn in, , or ohe sticks to report on the case and learn what the facts of the case are. and then write articles tabts in the "washington post" and the new "the new york times" or such. i think haing mor prss coressall e be. edvaleo the public

serves as a role as well. hopefully the the court will be ready next time. >> our viewers and listeners know to go tohese thee inntman r hei ert clark, i saw your ha first. sorry if'm discriminating. viqst questions ago. if you look at conformation hearings for judge roberts the dominate theme of those hearings was republican concern abut restrain effor. andsomat uzbohe bealth field because -- that's what they got. do you see dissonance there in terms of perhaps it was disappointing that should not

have been a surprise ven the nfti ar?y of vlnd >>aevh that comment. for many years as long as i've been doing this, standard view among conservative we don'twant judicial activist meaning people who st dow las. an or political and social issuings to be decided by the people and the voters. not by unelecte judges. and that's sort of where john roberts come down in the case.

to soreinsin, ar i i rule that the law requires. so if yu get that in this case, knowing i think on my side would have any complaints. i think it is incorrect to a wheva cottr d bee i their duty if they're following their own constitution in many cases. >> you as part of citizens united. they struck down a 67 euros limit on spending by corpations and

thean thought of as a first amendment required and so we struck it down. so it is not like john roberts is shy and has never vot to strike down a lot. he certainly has. >>dys a talk. my question is for mr. savage. i'm curious because you made the statement is in port and duke are at's reputation. i'm curious except for a da or ioralehr, unr whtcons o twoal ic scourt supposed to guard their reputation? >> well, i don't think i said at his job is to guard the court's reputation. i didhntattef justice would rather not have the quarter decidable lot of

cases on certified to four are seemingly partisan or political foes. he said at when eo chjue anths i notalked to them about this. i don't know what his view is, do you know that if the court had struck down the affordable care act on a five to fourvt apois nginda it entirely, democratic appointees dissenting, it would have been perceived by many people as a political or partisan decision. do you rmmrbo e time gmhweo polls and they said do you think the court will decide based on model or do you think they'll decide based on political preferences? i think two thirds of the public said they willdecide based on politicalpeences i don'ttihat ccen

i'in omoom here over to here because i am concerned about the political reaction, but i do think she would think that one but we are talking about a b duty to pollaws withhat ecn do i'm going to do it. and if that avoids this perception that the court is strictly sort of knee-jerk political pundit pitical questions, to me that is od >> f thoughts? okay, with that i want to thank everyone. but join me in thanking the panel. [alause] udns

>>resi o bs dax pato wear. dierthhe magnolia accent and she saw the dominoes start to fall, you know, during this time. by 1979 she was safe all fledged opposition to cater and bs apem and particularly

crucial in this respect in 1979 she saw a fall of the shah in a couple of lacerating experience is for her and people lihr

re t rre week. bouse reconvenes at 2:00 p.m. eastern tuesday. i'll consider a bill requiring the white house to identify which programs will be affected by the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in january. bu eseveeiagen at e coverage under sister network c-span. >> house republicans introduce

legislation putting a moratorium on new energy loan guarantees. the bill comes after the bankruptcy of solar pannier manufacturer, oy [inaudible conversations] wee hejitcnody d h eey and power subcommittee and the oversight investigation committee and i join my distinguished subcommittee chairma mr. whitfield from kentucky in heg.ening the joint legislative sumi.ilsfe t bdrngopg statements to the no more solyndras act and really pushing the chair for the first panelto my colleague, mr. whitfield. and i killed myself for mutes

for my opening statemt. spr f the no more solyndras act. product of an 18 month investigation by the oversight investigation maxie turning point in this investigation to gather to problems w ncer thlyivstind unring of the no more solyndras act is an example of how oversight should work. ask tough questions, identify probms and offer legislative sora tirecnt t.. under title 17 and poster child for this simulates a green driven energy program. it was also the first seamless baed ripie fe.. anra ie t le bupjuwo s r ln l in six months after d.o.e. restructure the loan and

subordinated his interest to so solyndra payors, ensuring they won't pay a dime. through the first compani whreedgaanbe rt onr is, loan guarantee programs have now filed for bankruptcy and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars will never be recovered. the reason the committee initiated this lender loa guarantee investigation are simple or the democrat jori 200acnu o oversight even after the injection of funding even after the loan guarantee chomp at the and white house asits fri u un of workers. we have a duty to figure out what went wrong with the cilantro adtran solyndra and by the first properly manage. it has been ugh ed

d ewoctsm y utbr ay ec it to solyndra and interviewed more than a dozen administrative officials who played key roles in the loan guarantee. members of minorithave ntended the vatno lyon htla an aisky. this investigation has shown far more than that. for example, the investigation has shown that several red flag raised in 2009 by dob and omb stats out e coy' final itof h et pctut t administration they fail to nsole for the treasury department and the policy act prior to restrain cilntro. thedmintrn'desio thal the review and resulted in d.o.e. rushing the loan guarantee out the door.

dob failed to adequately monitor the loan guarantee, blandly writing checks to solyndra as theony mogesh ro 2010. d.o.t. restructured in early 2010 and then in violation of the energy policy act of 2005 offer to subordinate its position to private investors in the event of liuatn. saredens about legality of the restructuring of weather would improve the government's recoveries after immediate liquidation. treasury played no role in revealing the structuring but advised d.o.e. tnsole the suinn which dod refused to do. but after the bankruptcy filing the administration was willing to take extraordinary measures to keep solyndra afloa and ensure the first loan guarantee was no fithirupanoer

eroomee a sponsoring the no no moe solyndras act to make sure that these mistakes and isguided decisions never happen ga. i get the lancofmtim to chan fi. six minutes to mr. whitfield. >> well, thank you mr. stear. i'delighted e ovsiveateeya r omeereni together in this important hearing. everyone in america is very much aware f solyndra nd slyndra fithdegomee frmany. os gha ilon dollars loan guarantee to a company so inept that it's gone bankrupt unless the american taxpayer holding the bag.

second, the facthat george isma esin ndaso jo ra f president obama and kept a questioning motivation of this loan and solyndra is not the only cub any thtivaoa ra tise nk. u'otco power, balance solar and others. all things onsidered, there is more than enough evidence to declare this program a failure. infac,oeeid w s ffoe president. it has been a failure for a lot of reasons. one, lack of transparency. two, costly for taxpayers at a time when we have andhfrid asedealbtdnnl fi thhc nth

case of bankruptcy, the lawyers of solyndra and the lawyers for the department of energy and the administration agreed to subordinate the taxpayer s that the private invesrs get their neyc istane ay last is really almost unbelievable. and then what le did political connectionspay in the receiving thly ccenlnur? isha issue. in the loan guarantee program as far as we know does not develop many technological breakthroughs at all. that wouldenefit the american people. at t diratita t e temin re jobs and get chairman ice and others have had hearings and when you found out what is deared or what is defined as the green energy job, someone

nearly filling up a us i jo now.regr so they didn't create new jobs. they simply change the definition of a green job to mislead the american eople and that is precisely what has been done in thisa and so, this legislation, no more solyndras act introduced by chairman stearns and chairman of genocidal imrts andp amanpa htw ss a tg another bill will be considering today is a smart energy act, which was introduced by mr. bass of new hampshire. we all know in order tocnserve energy there's a lot of different ways to do i. e hr en drs bill focuses on the government becoming more

efficient in its use of energy. and so i want to applaud him for that legislation. and i wld also point out hat thhohestory of our great country. you think about alexander graham powell, henry ford, roy brothers, bill gates, steve jobs and thers admit they were able to develop these new technolocalbeakthhwt vaol aot rn money. so i'm delighted we are moving in on this program and at this time i would like yield time to the chairman, mr. fred upton. >> thank you both, chairn. we all n osee invatis se aeieve the federal government would play a constructive role in encouraging them. when the program is not delivering on the goal of costing hundreds of millions of dollars, we owe it to the american people to pull the

plug. thagr ton uee havreac ranethaswh co-authored the no more solyndras act. i want to thank mr. stearns, chairman of the subcommittee for is very hard work, determination and getting iturbnd inign t t niti n dd there were any problems whatsoever and read up until its bankruptcy last summer. solyndra advertised as a stimulus success story and some figedinsof whichhsben liths gite fheerovme fng basic research that was bankruptcy starting to pile up, our message to the american people has to be clear there wi no more solyndrasact. i yielthe balance of my tm. hyom.cma hn hsisaositive step today, the fact we have a draft bill on no more solyndras act.

it is a good show. i seek mr. bass' bill is also a good bill. i was sliy diverged fro the partlidnceilinw rwth baby out with the bathwater. i do think we can reform the program. the green energy loan programs without totally terminating them. i hope in the process of the legislive hearing thate ulscus oeastoe a win-win on both sides. keep the program, but make them more open and transparent of the penalties for nonperformance annecy chairman and mr. stern's draft bill dies,ake t l t trryert dif they don't there'll be penalties. in any event, i want to commend that mr. afternoon mr. stearns for their draft bill and i lo rwarto rdctr

day. >> i recognize for 10 minutes the ranking member from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chrman. and yield myself three minutes. >> mr. chairman, since i joined this committee hve learned a leatanctasht sults in gd rtisan oversight results in party sends legislation and then no no more solyndras act come th legislation today proves that lesson. a ro ems of taxpayerollai ho aecct ull and fair investigation so we can find out what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. instead, the gop and solyndra oversight have made cheap political points in an election year instead of foowin evidcerelad rtel mr. chairman i have to respectfully disagree with characterization that this committee has conducted a thorough investigation.

despite our requests there were no hearings to understand what u.s. policies are ncessa campin gl n gy market. there's been no testimony from the largest private equity investors to understand by the company attraed over a billion dollars in private capital. we refuse to investigate the lotone projects and we refuse to invite d.o.e. witnesses to discuss the legal and financial rationale behind the subordination of the solyndraguaa orit o e fogiivtioo actually improve the d.o.e. loan program. instead, the majority has conducted a political investigation ignoring the benefits of he program, make in ree exculpatory evidenced

and abusing witnesses to invoke their fifth amendment privileges. given inadequacies of the commit a oversight it's no surprise to me this legislation is also problematic. as a pltal sttmerh aeis pd i osixages of findings, including the unsupported statement that the reviewer solyndra on application was driven by politics and eology unquote. th hasnt nsppdby mi'sig ok. f vtireed the opposite true. key decisions on loan guarantees from a made purely on this area. the draft ignores findings and recommendations of consultant herbert allison o codcta ouet nlsi pra f iar es and stable but he did make a series of recommendations to improve performance and program management.

d.o.e. is working to implement remmendations of the legislation ignores thea chanwudl opaanison mp the program, just like i would like to work on bipartisan oversight, but instead of that we had a series of very bipartian hearings therrtlgse or d pecan shift course after that and change the legislation in a bipartisan way. but that i yield two minutes to mr. dingell, the chairman opngte i asked the put in the record. we have been suffering through this on many occasions, having a wonderful set of hearings totally unrelated to he fax, having about the same realit iced d at sorted by the

leadership and members of the republican party and now we hear how we are going to correct this whole legislation by any piece oflgsio reic os b unngunra i ll finding nothing, issuing inflammatory press releases imaginable and again apparently to constitute repetition of this nonsense is going to make sobodyelie it. hafactf thmai excepting abode failed because the chinese cut the prices of thin-filelectrical generating status from the power from the su soy euli fdsar as ad,uire le t ound like jewels turning imagination, that demonstrated the wisdom and vision of an arthritis or not this morning we arrived to

repeal legislation, whi camp with chinese,t t ithe koreans, japanese and others whose governments widely imprudently find national efforts to develop new systems of eney use. powhchseec fst eth h ic engineering mistreatment recently added an american factory, using american technology on batteries, which were manufactured. n. korea becuse thes ae ea ttcogat americans invented because the government support. sad thing is true with the chinese. so let me simply observe, mr. chairman the wate of time, waste of opportunity, loss of opportuny fr the united coit.yecom wiin rzes a political exercise and not some

in conferring any good upon the united states. thank you. >> crmmyles mes he nc. mr. dingell is absolutely right. is is a hearing for politics. that's all it is. iuess an election year we can excuse it. but this nation faces and urgent ne challenge. he aexre hesou, event that we must act to address climate change. the are exactly the types of extreme events scientists have been pretty tame and congress has been at doriaacordg naalannd spcamnatmr than 40,000 high temperature records have been set this year. at the end of june this year, more than 100 million people in ex etavss.ere in areas under

o ds tou i expeencing drought. we're than 2 million acres have burned in wildfires this year. we need to act to reduce carbon pollution and. dothfotta eo ptinsfor carbon, to sensible regulations, to incentives for clean energy. but house republicans oppose every poteial solution. they sayno to market based solutions like cap-and-trade, no tocfetereulat, eguarantees or financial incentives for clean energy, even if they would impro our nation's global competitiveness. they even say no to simply reenvesh iavg thepol itth hirap a ai wie15tis this year to request hearings on varis climate change reports

and topics that we have yet to even get the courtesy of a response. isplety irresponsible. regrettably today's builds are just more examples of the same. no one should mistake the loan guarantee bill will be considering for a seous effort efngeora acos tl ed inaccurate and misleading congressional findings. i'm sorry solyndra have been. welost $500 million. enrprises.hamebtta sh and not all of them are going to succeed. but there has been no showing of wrongdoing by anybody in this administration d to the nowifwgdo itis.

gh claim being made by republicans. there's no evidence for it. so whether they propose lo ae og, n that would end this ns pdeliof aril bsd d a w tt would ignore the best possible to allergies and create a winner's list of about 50 projects eligible with any new invative idea that comes this year r ellese l are. even technologies republicans claim to support our abandoned if an application for small modular nuclear terror or next-generation nuclear plant is it d. rreo i'thinkhis is the way forward. i don't think this is a way to address a problem.

even energy efficiency, essentially part of any serious plan for climate change is a poioilvimen ind tioben there's building codes or appliance standards for industrial efficiency improvements, we should be doing much more in thi area and yet we are not oving owa ny gyicy otu ththil w w b nsidering how serious flaws. we need to step outside the bubble of being in washington and being consumed by thquest for politicalpwernd coe hg xt atao the nation and develop solutions to climate change and the real energy challenges facing our nation. thank you. >> i think the distinguished nking member of te fu noergee information

and finally the white house was compliant. but this was an arduous task in this all very methodical. >> mr. chan,e haore meb v tg answers. >> we are moving forward, mr. waxman and we appreciate your concern. at this point, the first panel will be handled by the chairman of the subcommittee on power -- soha ghelr m.whie. >> thank you, mr. stearns and i want to welcome the members of the first panel. we appreciate your takng time

to e with us this morni o iman seb oider a very onli as taxpayers is very important, particularly at a time when we have a gigantic federal debt. our two witnesses on the first panel at first, mr. david frantz, acting eeut er rthlo pamic the.s. partnt of energy and the second is the honorable dr. kathleen hogan, his deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency, office of energy at demefr.rwaeer so once again, thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. am going to call in each one to call in each one of you to give a five-minute opening state it and then at the end of hat time wiive membs an opportunity askusn r.franwi nit fiveinut forn oping

statement. >> chairman whitfield and stearns, ranking members who brash and to gt and members of the subcommittee, thank you for oppouny to tti foou nisid rn,ti director for the loan program thought this and in the way of the introduction in the executive service of the u.s. government and i was the first prt nieanof the lpo in 2007. dipeilysrved over 10 years of the overseas private investment corporation and senior management projt finance a major energy of a structure projects around te world. prior to t goeen serce fiei he dirt and previous to that is served as he was to disable officer officer and i am a vietnam combat vetan. at the outset i want to particularly express my thanks to all of you and yourrse

thsteyars.resan important to reiterate the point this is a program initiated by the u.s. congress with strong bipartisan support. in 2005 and we continue to welcome suggestions during the course of the development of the efhigh tros hma at i years associate with accomplishments with the program. the staff is one of the finae toans rdrtehor strsunedd rl standards. i would hasten to add to the gao in its reason on it at the d.o.e. program guarantees acknowledge commercial lenders interviewed by gao stated that lp is derwriting a due riussorr tan those of the private sector. it is noteworthy that in 2011

e department of loan programs office was recognized as the laest singleource debt financing for cleaener oj ie united stes, thccd ngimen inrdit t ilitor willingness to finance the innovative and large-scale cln energy projects at the lpo supports. in addition to transactions were recent recognized by exceptiol structure by at this time the lpo is committed to a close 35 billion in direct loans of an guarantees which financed nearly three dozen projects. to support more than 56 billion in total projectien eed e 302011 the 1705 program included a portfolio of $16 billion for projects and collectively the lpo projects are expected to support over 60,000 jobs while efaeclen

fiiacis d ly ha bve he time will result in the best outcome for the united states taxpayer. but most are reacted on a continuing basis to apply fundamentalisms learn. as i emphasize in hir rten wos suntan cobus ofhe pject themselves. a whole new subindustry have been fostered through the supply chain. with respect tothe specific legislation the administration is currently reviewing it and poonnot reached official po g taxpayer dollars that is so is our primary objective in the program, the department has concerned the legislation will not accomplish that goal. in ft we areoncerned this legislion potentially could have unintended cosees atldim ability and put taxpayer dollars at risk.

it could lead to duplication of efforts and cost. de. me express o e n udpibth department for on a loan guaranteesnd applications received after 2011. this provision would make it difficult if not impossible to make use of loan authority provided by congress, icully i r ol moerng t pantldicei guarantee loans at the mos innovative technologies in the area of nuclear and renewable projects. second, legislation that extended consultative role the rectg oa department chncd lo guarantee process plays a particular role based on existing interest andexpertise. legislations additional requirements and treasury department may increase transaction costs to the government by requiring pltifrsonli

i know we have worked closely on a continuing basis of the office of manageme and budget treasury and each transaction throughout the approval and closing process to prt demero the xeis ppting our zone strain of restructuring. this provision would weaken the taxpayer's investments by eliminated natur to be be the best option for saving pojes risan fprti er. for allison nducted an outside review of the loan portfolio and has decades of experience stated in his testimony before the senate and natural resources committee th if e paramount issue is apry,he li tepenou vee iby i size to subordinate the necessary. in conclusion mature support, we look forward to the opportunity

srtprts h create jobs and reduce pollution and administer the title 17 abm programs we are striving to improve our systems and processes to manage loa ansansnd ptfolios in mo efftive eie er obl lhougel th interest of the u.s. taxpayer has our foremost concern. thank you very much for inviting me and i look forward to your response drhogaoureizedor mn er ao n he desk that when he says when, that didn't stop. i will stop you immediately, but he will give you some semblance where you are. thank you. >> thank you. chairman ielsts iny usd mbof smme, anu thpounity to discuss the efforts to improve

energy efficiency on the industrial side dirt and comment briefly private committee today. president obam followd t e ersty s ignetouc enc co ainan consumer many make us more energy secure and protect our environment and position the united states is a global leader in clean energy and in purit ofhese goals, dob supporters a oaanefs,ea depmfo ngye elegies and accelerate the adoption of efficient products and services can also assist the federal government and leading by example in these areas. we do want to thank you for your efrts in support money isotsa g tweldo t opportunity to provide technical assistance in several places to offer greater clarity or adjustments based on what we know astarte well underway.

i will now go on to tal abt e. effortseled te feloenment is making great strides leadingy example on energy and sustainability goals set by congress and the executive branch and indeed performance contract and is very portant to theseefor. ee dr legislation such as deepak 05 in 2007, which established a number of goals for energy intensity, water intensity, greenhouse gas reduction, renewable energy, sustainable pcurement a data tofalanen or sound across the gernment to help achieve these goals cost-effectively as first reporting on progress. the results to date are significant. we are seeing reducons and use

of renewable sources for more than 5% of eectricity and indeed performance-based ntracting has been important prss ic 206, fab has assisted in savings over $5 billion in enegy costs over the average life of efficiency measures and through these contracts and is noworking with agencies to helpte br d initiatives of engaging in a 2 billion or more performance-based contract team. here we look forward to working with the committee to see how we can continue to use th mechanism i ct uglest wedowileclat vehicles. they can certainly make a tremendous contribution to energy security, environmental and economic objective in the federal government is doing a brpolivh ye.o.ups

owe wowe so have a strong emphasis on alert at vehicles, their broad use can have a big impact on reducing our dependence on foreign oil, provides stable no fuel pric foraeicfie also have convenience of just plugging in at home and th can reduce the overall environmental impact of transportation. across the administration, arging infrastructure is being about it into the federal sleep. paul a h and where available to work with the committee but the best approach is for continuing to it and the federal sleep. wee grand challenge to ew t aggressive goals to develop

the next generation of vehicle componand arging coitpln tr cos ey poed and told it to manufacture and export the next generation of advanced plug-in cds and components t manufacturingos. mafacture in jobs, are also working to strengthen the nation manufacturing sector in ways that can create more jobs and enhance u.s. competitiveness. the dob advanced mufacring ce u h rrc ddvnt. we work and coordinate well across the national institute of standardand take elegy and other govement agencies three are particularly prioritizing theoontmn lacuting eheei

energy technologies in many industries so that we can engage in the high impact areas. we als are working the today's industry to help them save praby. and incree exe he eil ps raer energy leaders agree to set goals to improve operation energy use by 25% more over 10 years. ac e2000 industries and they're making great progress. recomment on support for heat and power development it's an apoach to enryyut pusileci burning fuel separately you can do with higher conversion efficiency, recognizing the benefits of chp and his current

unrutilization in the u.s., we are focused on acceleratg oy os chp through clean energy applications centers, where the assist in transforming the market for chp and district energy technoloes throughout th canns jury. e erus o ss, at oac assistance. in summary, we're making a lot of progress in improving the efficiency of building the federal set your time at vecles, industries, but also continues to be arge additiol oprtunity in eac these ars whwe h setyinndteng environments and we appreciate the opportunity and would be happy to answer the questions. >> thank yu, dr. hogan ad both of yorr tty. mis thrpof ng questions.

mr. frantz, back in my district when i talk o civic clubs in kentucky and elsewhere and when they find out that i'm involved in energy cys th uned ss oenm,blisstco up about solyndra. it is almost becoming an example of many people's feelings of incompetence in govenand you know there aot oge t heulcnwya taxpayer dollars. and your testimony, you indicated protecting taxpayer dollars was one of the primary responsibilities that she is feel athe ating here at the lporam suinnise. now, director of the olympia at that time, jacob lew sat out the

circular 812dument,c cadeibols procedures for designing credit programs including loan guarantee programs. it specifically said, the sutee rdto claims should not e casuinn creases the risk to the government and taxpayers. they would apply tod g,d es sir. >> since it does apply and what it does to you all feel like you couldsbrderso ivinor

>> mr. chairman, first i would answer your qution in two parts very quickly. the career civil servants deinis us isia legal for us to subordinate under circumstance we were confronted with for the project. so that is the fundamental decision that was tak. atbigi is that i indicated in my oral testimony and this congress has heard from a very senior expert, herb allison, this tool would only be used in tre situations where we have verydisrsed proct i h t asin oral testimony is that in fact by doing it, it's the one last chan we have two father that liquidate --

anu'llubnainistress proct hoha o ouyt ecsta correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> i might also say in the language of the policy act of 2005, is al strictly prohibited a subordition and noatl at taw sbo that? >> the determination as they just indicated to you, mr. chairman was that we acted perfectly legally within the requirments thtwtad prtihepa ithe u.s.? >> as i indicated in my oral testimony to you, this is the last resort. this is not a tool taken lightly. >> , china has bn st? >> ntg sia dy ab them?

>> cannot remember the exact number. >> they recite $538 million? >> in that range, i. owh e ct recover? >> 527 with the number. >> how much do we expect to recover? >> we don't have the determination. q oetxpswl a possibility ofnkcy paid back glass. >> not necessarily last, but they won't be first. >> private investors will be before the taxpayers. >> pardo me? private investors will be t ftpa. >>nt nwth precedents. >> doa's website, they talk about jobs being created and they said tat about lar would crea or ve 10b. anul cedo

d ndndo pecan. since all of them have not turned out as planned, it looks like a total of the 17 of that project has been 1124 permanent aal loans a $16 billion, which comes to 13,000,700 drty $8075 for every createdo. yeeket od tuort american taxpayer? >> mr. chairman, got to ink about that issue in context. for the industries i come from -- i come from the mjor sts. hao erh st beiion are capital intensive, not labor intensive. we have very few manufacturing plants to which are more labor-intensive than our

portfolio. predominance of our portfolio and the object is realy is to crea largefrtrur ilscprts b ni tre a multiplier. >> they are pretty risky than what you say? >> we feel just the opposite, that solar energy have tecwste-- rlxps la of money. you all have subordinated them to private investors in the jobs created are unbelievably expensive. that is why we fel like this program is a terrible filure. t teecogd le ror >> mr. chairman, ask if you have the circular a 129, that they put in the reco. fiof, chan mr.chai

rro this a 129. at dan subordination making the initial loans under this program, crrect? thi interpretation. >> the energy act of 2005 that determine referred to also prohibited subordination in the initial oaot stur rct >> the lawyers looked at this and they designed it would be illegal to subordinate the taxpayers interest in the restructuring of the solyndra loan, is that ore n l does they go bankrupt and the others

sioned ht we think why was determined in the restructuring that it would be a good idea to subordinate. >> a ad this is a tool of last resort and restructuring, but it is the is specically to attract new equity into the sa tpoetope 'sci witor those investors new money coming into an already distressed property, almost demand advanta seor position. >> so in oer ws,bcase sorajehin av s d.o.e.'s plan to

structure it. >> it was determination that th only way they could dothat, theycudatct e ap, e whecud invest was in fact if they had -- was that your decision after now? >> yes. >> so when the findings -- and gh td'wo ,bu wetll might recover something, is that right? >> hopefully. >> one of the reasons we have these loans is because these ar risky business is. is that right? >> because of changing market conditions mainly caused by china, solyndra's business mel really have trouble. nnhngsin ht it d.o.e. found as

six pages of findings in this though we talk about today, one of the findings claim the process was driven by politics and ideology anddioce om on rty of lgans ra since 2007 and that's a career, is that correct? >> in yur position, jubilate the statenma omth ins tetantivy ti d lo to e be of my knowledge, the whole history from inception to today, it has not been driven byeed uiic acal by whaoever.l he y bawd the

merit themselves. >> is it fair to say on the time you approve the log ou conducted a thorough analysis simply the come he wold be a worthile investment for the d.o.e. lnrgam >>thme i te due diligence, that is absolutely correct in that timeframe. >> can you assure us they were made on the merits and there was no favoritism shown towards yn >>anaslht assurance. >> sitting here today, of course hindsight is always 20. do you think there's imprements that could be made to this program? >> are certainly are. and as indicated in my testimony, we are eloyi fundtales lened we uld ally appreciate it if you wouldn't mind supplementing your testimony today to give this committee recommendations of what we can do to strengthen the program rather than to just be pounding on it for political reasons

thank you m aise recoized the job and from florida, mr. stearns for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. frant and your opening statement coming to you to have ilitytocninoev stsuintaer tere on an guarants. is that your position this morning? and d.o.e. sordination is legally uiet let e rat oy subordination. the obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinated to otherfinancing. to recognize thatlnu is d.o.e. regulate other loans?

>> mr. chairman, the question can on be answered in context. >> it appears in hftre >>r f a il menu. >> argue and position as the language pertains to the origination of the transactions, not to projt -- >> w are baslyesou in oe ird th m ligaon is not oh finance team. you say is applies only only at the beginning and does not later on. so your interpretation of the word is is the focus of your a e shoan tocrdm, ido not have a license to practice la >> i cannot rely on the service professional legal staff. >> okay. but your lal staff is making thdecision on theword isn ont in beginning.

>> do you intend to continue supporting other loans? yes or no. >> again, it has to be done i context. yeescnuool of last rt. i do. very definitely we do because if a project is i distress, we want the opportunity. otloas that suportdedany y rdederla we pe n to ve tdo it. as emphasized in my comments. >> are there any other you are considering? >> not to my knowledge. >>ow dhark u? nd time >> hindsight is always better than foresight. >> how much money will taxpayers

get because the solndra? un$7llof tntine dgnd use support me get theirs first. it's not true? >> is express, none of the details in terms of the president for each. >> you work for the miran. do itonge e e back. haven't you heard their arguments? >> is still an investigation sir. >> don't you agree that te loan guartee ras a h c? uio cnr, sir. ..

>> you feel the future an guarantees will be strong? no morebankruptcies? >> i can't garn see that,sir. spths ah r iin d iat t eym ew and innovative technology, and that, in fact, was accommodated by the $10 billion that congress authorized for us for a loan loss reserves.

>> mhan,im >>nk. hime, i regnize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in the fall, i'll note we didn't have the department of energy here when we neede them. day,e nedheart ea. onavh 's a curious mix. we neat the department of easury to answer the questions we're discussing today. i know by history seven of the leaderships on the majority side seeemy blsle supported the llesedoritd i d to i still think it's a good idea. having said this, i'd like to address this question. now it is not proper to theof o ler r tsto legislation in the initial loan

or loan guarantees; is that right? >> correct, sir. >> okay. but you do needhe authority to subordinate in the event that the compan gets inroub? esr. ha ran t y pretty har to refinance and bring in a new investor unless he knows that his money's going to be as sfe as can be; is that right? >> yes, sir. >> all right now, so this ansia idkry avding going under; is that right? >> it's always the hope. >> a standard tool going back to the beginni. all right. now, so it is not up usual to , tfiin winng take precedents over financing already in place. that's the sandard practice in the financial industry; is that right? >> yes, sir. >> all right. now, will this legislation then jeopardize futurerutoe

and iak ss for there to be a proper restructuring of a loan? >> we are of that opinion. >> okay. now, inour opiniondo rt oea h t peeovi tol a section 17 loan? >> congressman, it's not -- >> no, the answer is that they don't have that authority. that skill, do they? >> we have -- >> that's what the doe does; is that right >> weave picpee. e d tll a the technical questions and the treasury to tell us about finances. >> yes. >> but we don't have the treasury here. now, as your time as agenti directer, have you received litical pressure from the white house to approve a l fo ldeot qfi evyone emphatically no, sir.

>> do you understa the question? >> i do, sir. >> you stand on your answer? >> i do, sir. >> how many documents has the department of energy turne over to tomee tsa ie, si >>eyoec tum >> to the best of my knowledge, we tried to fully cooperate with your committee here, sir. >> were the documents turned over voluntarily or subpoenaed? >> i can't answer that quest ey wvoarm weno ite. chairman, that we have, now the expertise of a witness down there that you called in which he points out this sets a badrecedt, ashe pti ur opzipads m j a if one of these companies to which you have a loan guarantee gets in difficulties, this legislation goes into place, you wouldn't have the capacity to itsitosa ihastructuri ofhe

right? >> that's my assertion, sir. >> you can't draw additional investors in to help save the public's investment and to keep the jobs andther things that are necessary. >> yes, sir, that's our noheer d si ink made. misinformation in the case of solyndra, but not every application for a loan is like this. can i ask you this question? doreoe reviewed and sarted corrected your problems that you found with regarto solyndra? just yes or no. >> yes, sir. >> all right. so the legislation before us auit tasto g n pantte ve no witnesses or representative of the treasury here. before we go forward in this, we ought to hear from e people who have the financial expertise

of addressing this. i'm a strong propont of do nert, we rmf erow committee, the subcommittee, and the full committee, and as the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, i did an awful lot of investigatn. we pull a lot of folks from both administrations, repca a se t twe got the facts, and we got the witnesses needed to tell us what was going on. i see none of that happening today. i think that ifthe committee really wants to do a good job, ought toroednat ctsotwebe thagsh facedly out of here saying, well, i screwed up. i yield back the balance of my time. >> we invited witnesses from the treasury department, and they declined to be he. >> i've been a member ofhe wh yviomy,y me ty t,oueysf

getting them up here. if the gentleman doesn't know how to do it, i'll assist him. [laughter] >> well, maybe we can meet with you. in tem, ahairman, froard, we dnomtee d t fact is we invited them. >> we could have had a different day. >> the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> i just know that i'm ad to be here. [lauter] w ied diep isul be a solutions hearing. i don't think anybody on either side of the aisle thinks this solyndra loan program, dehitynass of the pic an program has been run very efficiently to be as mild as possible, and the draft bill that mr. sterns and mr. upton

have put out is antt to ab preventing future solyndras from happening. it's not a perfect bill. the reason we're having a legislative hearing is because mr. upton and mr. sterns want to go through the regular order. is, itnm, but ati some point, we should focus on solutions to protect the american taxpayer in the future. my first question. we have -- the deputy assistan drgautdendgor ergy eie yeot here to talk about the solyndra bill, but . bass' bill; is that correct? >> that is correct. >> have you been authozed at all to cment onola? rete f mas bill?

>> i believe we have mr. frantz here to discuss the loan guarantee program. that's his area of expertise. >> well, i kwr.rants us i butou er cet;ha correct? >> yes, sir. >> and theoretically, you're not supposed to be political, is that not correct? >> that is absolutely correct. >> you don't speak f the obama administtion, do you? >> speak as a civil svant yre iva a my first comment on policy's going to be on subordination. mr. dingell and i were the conference committee when we passed the energy policy act. th rngemfisan, d as committee. we didn't put a lot of debate into this particular part of the ll, but it was clear that we

put the su board natn lang iea tlyh . 'tboat there has never, until this loan, been a taxpayer back loan that was subordinate, and if i and others on the commite have newieagg to do withthis,th y mr. frantz, say, that, well, extremists, you may do it. it's taxpayer money. in the private sector when you sub board nate, you sub board itsk itout. inli sector, it's taxpayer dollars. you put sub board nation language in because you don't want to subordinate peer. there's no exceptions or legal period that's rendered on t loan sang i's ope. ha a el to ahe law firm as general counsel to the

department of energy where an attorney in an e-mail says, well, maybe it's okay. you don't have a writtenegal opinion from outside counsel that's sned onhe letter head eniar. uve yve a deal general counsel memorandum about as torturous as it's psible to be. i hope on bipartisan basis one thing we can agr on is that we're not going to allow boat hoe pme pty e he reasons you guys got away with it is because there's no penalty. there's no penalty. i guarantee you if you as the loan program officer were subject to a $00 ,ou twabagng to subordination so don't -- don't insult the common sense of the american people. we knew what we were doing on subordination. langged iot.plain enh

wehtbeet that. now, on the general loan program, i happen to agree with what was said. i don't think we need to throw out the whole program. i think we can cln up. thanma m anen th wanut penalties in, some caps, you know, so i guess even though you're a career civil servant, you are hear -- re for the department of energy, does the department of energy continue to support t hee anog f rne gy ects? do you support it or not support it? >> websolutely support it. >> you do support. do you also then report some reforms to make sure solyndra does not happen again? >> the -- to answer that es, aontl inmpng ra >> so you support reforms to the program? >> certainly, we do. >> all right. >> i offered that in my oral

testimony. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman, my time's expired, but i yield back. >> this time, i recognize the gentleman from cifa, mrani tk . about the republican loan guarantee bill. is bill doesn't end the loan program that -- loan guarantee program. under this proposal, blion of dollars of new loan gute can beue to s, t pbi doe from considering any new applications for loan guarantees. it freezes those that can be anapd 2red by the wh cme i 's biy dion of picking winners and losers. it creates a winners' list potentially of a few dozen projects submitted before the end of 2011. those are the only applications caook a ybelat

nd bkirprin their technology is looseses. this program was created to support innovative technology. that's its wholeurpose. under the republican bill, new breakthrough thnolies ned isshe rt ctthro ient to support innovative energy technology? >> it certainly is not. as i indicated in my oral testimony, mr. ngressman, it telo ihe fusronong ea renewable applications other than those we already received. >> i want to undetand the practical implication ofs of the bill. if they developed a new technology that reduces thest ol o w oeoma power with new applications, can doe award them a loan guarantee urn the bill? >> we could not. >> even the technologies

republicans claim to support are abandoned. we hear about the importance of thmme ivesnyoalnd nar from a research administrator at west virginia university emphasing advanced coal technology. say ectricacilyubmi new apicnor r tat -- utilized a cheaper carbon technology. under this bill, can doe consider the technology for a lope guarantee? >> woul could not. >> if an application for a small geticl pisr or next bmd,oe required to reject it; is that right? >> that's right, sir. >> rather than considering new technology, doe has to dig through the pile of reactor applications submitted by the end of last yea is th rht? tohi from considering

any new applications for new technologies. doe has the authority to issue temperatures of billions of dollars in loan guarantees for enmeros, andsil fu pct renewable energy. any public policy reason to think the application's already committed are the perfect projects and there's no new ideas out there that will be worth considerg in the years com >> no. ae, s >> this republican bill, seems to me, is a terrible bill, just the latest rublican assault on clean energy providing no answers to the energy challenges, stiflesnnio therhaos ers a b-dan sd allow some subordination of the loans. what is he talking abt talking about bordination? >> the subordination question is

raised inhe ctext ur in o and exclusively in projects that are in severe disstress we are trying to attract and savehe project from the u.s. tpayers. you look at a guante oks av a lofmi einis d egh to succeed, and you give them a loan guarantee meaning if they can't pay the loans, the government pays for the loans. then they run into financial problems such as their competitors sdenly dpei ic s h c it a n yf providing this technology, they will not be economically viable. is that the situation we're talking about? >> yes. >> looks like there's some way they can still cc b edre money. they go o and find lenders.

is what mr. barton is objecting to is the government standing behind additional loans? >> well, i think, again, for the genera befit he ee it ces, n cet ti po that this is a tool that we would employee in the last resort, even in the negotiations in restructuring. this is noting? that we would then do take lightly. afwe fdinegtithat is ued aract other investments to save the project without using it. it's the last thing we would do. >> it's the last thing you might do to save a project, and if you can't do that and save the projec the the taayerave thangutet >>es, sir? >> try and succeed or let all the losses roll? >> in my oral testimony, that's the assertion made that you would be hamstringing us and taking a ve important crical

tool that cod,t,av xp m. haouanu. timxp. now e recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for your service. as a veteran, i appreciate that, and it's very frustrating for me when sometimes iave to agree th mwa snt i winbo district. [laughter] what's going on here in the water in washington so a couple concerns is i did vote for the 2005 energy and policy act which alwi rm barton thati we have to be careful throwing out the baby with the bath water, but the congress changed significantly, and the who loan guarantee issue with the newdesm aefs bthere a te it the government's role? if there is as mr. waxman said

a new technology, i'm a big coal ths rr tol i'tlihe ever will be economically feasible. that's the whole climate change debate. if there was, why wouldn't the atctore o th twhole debate. now, i guess the other concern that those of us who have not spent all the time that the oni committee has on this stuff, i ecyomeeinenvirot inhe nar we. eo many times where i believthe administration, the language of the law is black and white. it's on paper. this subordination issu really tofifsoned

legislation, should we -- if we don't want to sbordinate anything again, adjust the los angeleof the legislation to say if it's a failedower is ye rly t rde. that's what you're saying because you have used -- i'm not a lawyer, and i know you shop around trng to find a lawyer who may gouptto , hi issue has traction with the american public. they wonder how it was done with the clear, concise aspects of the law. i yield my time, but i want to go to ms. hogan for a second. part of your statt,ou t vee ouk ut trehsh stuff, and i want to make sure people understand you have electricity. it's cheaper, but you never -- what people have to understand

is that to use electric vehiclesyou have to generate pr f pasy, andthsva electricity per kilowatt hour from coal being -- nuclear power cheap now, coal cheaper, wind, solar, speansive. high cstlectric vehles grpo ire ens traditional major neration, and you should have that as part of the analysis. now, i yield the remaining time to mr. griffin from west virginia -- or virnia. >> tyorim e on line is english, subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing. the counsel dances aroun it king it apply for only 5-10 minutes in thelosing or hour afr theos a diy ratot w thpi, footnote 2 makes it

clear you don't have to to be in disstress. the secretary can do it in any time. the ag was not notified ai logedingheom ng, sh h the counsel dances around that, not understanding the default, it was not a payment default, but another kind of default. when you look what the secretary's powers are in 1702, anyouk, s il gl ththe prty acquired the pursuant to related aeements shall be superior to the rights of any other person with respect to property. that section makes no sense if you subordinate any time you want to, and fuher i would submit toouhaten sdr au i emf , etary u testified to this or to the oni committee under oath he knew in december, he knew in february when the

loan was subordinated, that the chr sdrulakro eer w lking out for the taxpayers of the united states of america? i submit we were not. wouldn't y agree? >> did youan t ry, . tz w cct rue diligence, as i've indicated without being defensive at all, hindsight is always much more valuable than foresight. at my level and the staff level, we were taken completely by surise ea iigh the transaction was appropriate in that time and place. given what we now know, we would obviously not have proceeded with the transaction. >> even the sorditeoar tiquonk? respectfully, it is a tool we

used onlyunder extremist, it's not something we cavalierly used at any instant. it's only to save us. taxpays'olla in e l so he lesimir i recognize the gentlelay -- gentle lady from california for five minutes. sorry, i was td from illinois, five mnute mrha frantz, i wanted to ask you a few questions about the doe's response to the recommendations of herblison, the up dependent consultan re tloutethe white h as k t credentials and impartialities are well-known, previously serving as the assistant secretary of the treasury for financial stability and finance campaign chair for

senator mccn's presidential mp. he pceerpo stiv remmendations. the report, by the way, found at the doe loan portfolio as a whole was strong and the program was largely working aslanned, but he also sugsthedo acha pti on taxpayer interest and establish an early warning system for loans that may be in trouble. i wanted to ask you, what types of improvements? we talked a lot, and you said you' done that buthat types of imovemts h the prram de tere t yer much. it's a very good question. first, at the top of the ledger i indicate to you and the full committee that with the department of energy is in the process virtually imemenngllf t codassth m appropriately be done as quickly as we can.